It was refreshing to see Greta delete her "were all doomed in five years tweet from 2018" last week. They also took down the signs in Glacier Park that predicted the glaciers would be gone by now near where I live.
The initial predictions at the time were for the situation then, but if the situation changes, the predictions won't become wrong, just outdated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJdqJu-6ZPo
And we can debate semantics, but the prediction failed to accurately predict the future, as is the norm for climate catastrophists. It's all emotional appeal to whip up the masses to vote, same way gun and ammo prices spike whenever a democrat wins the Presidency. I would hope people who actually have the power to help solve the problem are looking at the issue more objectively.
Not that far off from, "We're all doomed in five years," because we definitely did not stop using fossil fuels, and in my opinion, wiping out all of humanity would count as doom.
You don't die from jumping off a building you die from hitting the ground.
I think there are definitely meaningful levels of "doomed", but that really depends on what you value. If what you value is I can live by the ocean without being beaten to death by huge storms maybe that is a bit more on the doomed scale.
It more is that we are forcing the system to change, we somewhat have a say in how much/how fast/how unpredictable we would like that to be. Also keeping in mind with some systems the more we push the system from equilibrium the less controllable it is.
Most climate advocacy, I find, focuses too much on the doom and gloom of what will happen if we continue down our present path, and not enough on the number of lives that have been and will continue to be enriched by easily and cheaply accessible energy from fossil fuels. I am aware of the downsides and by no means think we should pollute for the sake of polluting, but I remain unconvinced by the current alternatives proposed by the overall climate movement.